Did the United States remove the “John Adams” of Iran?

"When chickens have come home to roost"

Arguably, the existence of the United States and its democratic constitution required the high-minded idealism of John Adams. He provided inspiring speeches at critical moments, gave principled guidance to colonial agreements, and had the wisdom to nominate George Washington as the continental army’s top general over Artemas Ward, the leading choice from his own colony. What a difference one man can make for a nation’s political future. The freedoms, civil rights, and the pursuit of happiness for United States citizens relied on the difference that this one man had made, among other forefathers as well. Fortunately, the British did not imprison or otherwise remove Adams from power. This is not an unreasonable “what if” exercise, since Adams was a thorn to King George. In the event that he could bring about reconciliation, Lord Howe was given a short list of colonists that he could not pardon from hanging; John Adams was on that list.

In encouraging democracies across the world, the United States should be the first to see the importance of forward-thinking, idealistic people who can lead their countries from foreign oppression and monarchial societies to a self-determined democracy. Unfortunately, the United States’ tends to put economic interests over altruistic ones. The United States often sees such national leaders as threats to the interests of the United States and with hypocritical logic also sees them as dangerous to their own nations.

With a build-up to war with Iran underway, the United States should contemplate the result of its past interests and interventions in Iran. In particular, the United State's involvement in removing Mohammed Mossadegh from power. Sadly the struggle for democracy in Iran is not understood by most United States citizens, yet most Iranians are very aware of the vital part that the United States government played in derailing their path to self-determination and fuller democracy.

In the 1940s, Mossadegh founded the “National Front of Iran,” a political opposition group committed to bringing a secular democratic state to Iran. Their goals were to promote democracy and to end the interference of foreign governments in Iranian politics including the exploitation of national resources by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, or AIOC (and now known as British Petroleum). The AIOC oil concessions were arranged by previous Persian monarchs.

Before Mossadegh became prime minister in 1951, the Iranian parliament had sought to audit AIOC’s accounts to assure that Iran was receiving the royalties they were due. However the British refused and the Iranian parliament increased their demands to be given an equal share of the oil revenues. The negotiations escalated to the point where the British ceased their Iranian oil operations rather than give in to Iran’s demands. The Iranian parliament then voted to nationalize Iran’s oil industry. At this point, a historically informed United States citizen should recognize a similar standoff situation between the American Colonies and the English King George.

After the Oil Nationalization Act was passed, Mossadegh became prime minister by a landslide vote and Iran regained control of the oil refineries. The British responded by setting up a naval blockade preventing the shipping of Iran’s oil and putting Iran into an economic crisis; it didn’t help that Britain was the dominant customer for Iranian oil. The crisis led to a power fight between the Shah and Mossadegh, who ended up resigning as prime minister despite remaining popular and recently being re-elected for a second term. The Shah restarted negotiations with the British and when the Iranian people saw that the Shah was heading them back under British domination, a populist uprising ensued. The Shah soon restored Mossadegh as prime minister to regain political stability. Like John Adams, Mossadegh was ready to lead his nation to freedom from British domination and to increasingly move toward a more secular democracy.

Unable to defeat Mossadegh on their own, the British quietly came to the United States for help. President Truman refused, but when Eisenhower was elected the British asked again. Eisenhower consented to help overthrow the democratically elected Mossadegh. The CIA planned “Operation Ajax” to restore AIOC’s business in Iran but with the concession that AIOC would not be a monopoly and that five United States oil companies could also now operate in Iran and share the proceeds. Being it was the cold war 1950s, and the fact that Mossadegh was a social progressive, gave the United States and British governments the opportunity to spin Mossadegh’s oil nationalization efforts and social programs into a communist threat. The hypocrisy of this spin is seen by the CIA’s own plans which included a means to counter any attempts by the Tudeh Party, Iran’s communist party, from gaining control during the removal of Mossadegh from power.

Although the coup initially failed, the United States was finally able to install a pro-western Iranian general as prime minister and Mossadegh was given a mock trial and sentenced to death. The Shah commuted the death sentence and Mossadegh was kept in solitary confinement for three years, and then under house arrest for the rest of his life.

What has been the impact of removing this “John Adams” person from the Iranian political scene? The Iranian citizens came to view the United States as a country that for profit thwarted their national independence and democracy. The Shah was considered to be a puppet for western nations and businesses. During the ensuing suppression of self-determination, the religious elements came to dominant over secular views; even the Islamic leaders involved in Mossadegh’s National Iranian Front left to form the moderate Islamic “Freedom Movement of Iran.” By the time of the Islamic Revolution in 1979 and the establishment of an Islamic republic in Iran, there were a diverse number of larage parties and ideologies working together to some degree in opposition to the Shah’s rule and the political influence of western nations. During the revolution, various leaders made statements stating that the path of democracy had now been restored which was denied to them in the 1950s. In the aftermath of the revolution and in the power vacuum of the deposed Shah, that Ayatollah Khomeini and his radical elements gained much of the power over Iran. The infamous occupation of the United States embassy by the revolutionary guards was partly motivated by the fear that the United States would again attempt to interfere in the self-determination of the Iranian people.

A 2000 poll on the Iranian.com magazine, an expatriate Iranian web site, gave the largest number of votes (42%) to Mossadegh for being the “Iranian of the Century”. The Iranian magazine surmised that there is “little doubt who the general public considers the most significant personality of the 20th century.” The comments survey takers made on Mossadegh are quite revealing including these brief phrases:

Giving us control,

Did not sell-out,

Believed in people,

Louder than words,

Honorable life,

Biggest patriot,

Democratic-minded,

Fought for Iran,

Challenged colonialists,

Limited Shah's powers,

First nationalist and

Great man.

These are great words to describe John Adams, too. Fortunately for the United States and even in the long term for the United Kingdom, the British did not remove John Adams from power.